Certainly the use of UAVs as a military asset that can both gather intel and be used to attack legitimate enemies makes sense. But we’re into a very gray moral area with “extra-judicial” and targeted killings in other countries.

The irony, of course, is the administration that arrogantly condemned its predecessor for secret jails and military tribunals and insisted that the judicial system be used in the war on terror instead now acts as judge, jury and executioner in these UAV killings.

I just wondered what we’d think if Pakistan began flying UAVs into the US and knocking off politicians who supported UAV strikes in Pakistan, calling them “war criminals” and all?

Think we’d find that outrageous, a violation of our sovereignty and international law and be whining to the UN about what was being done by that country (not to mention beating the war drums here at home)?

Deep breath here, because it is a fair question: How would we feel about it if the shoe were on the other foot? We’d most likely be righteously pissed off. But that’s hardly relevant to the discussion here, is it? Unless the discussion is about whether we should ever be able to respond in kind to eradicate threats to our own nation if it inconvenienced a foreign nation’s sovereignty.

In the United States I believe in, there wouldn’t be any whining to the UN involved, though. There’d be swift, brutal retaliation, regardless of whether the terrorists in question were hiding behind the skirts of a foreign nation. Said foreign nation would then be given 48 hours to hand over the terrorists, after which we’d be punching in GPS coords and warming up the ICBMs.

Of course the Pakis have a right to be annoyed that we keep offing terrorists that they’ve allowed to hide in plain sight in Pakistan, but the annoyance wouldn’t be there if they hadn’t been allowed to hide there in the first place, hein? Osama bin FishSticks had a quite comfy setup deep within Pockeeestahn, in plain view of military installations of a nation that was, allegedly, an ally of ours. We sure as hell paid the whore enough to stay as a whore, yet they decide to play both sides of the fence and, as a result, OUR national interests stay threatened.

What to do? Allow various nations that we subsidize to add insult to injury to provide safe houses to our most dangerous enemies, or should we do what we have been doing and sending in a rider on a pale horse to bump them off since our “ally” obviously has no interest in behaving like an ally.

War is not cricket and yes, at times you must reach the conclusion that, in order to achieve your objective, you must do what you would never put up with, were it done to yourself.

Were the terror bombings of Germany from ’43 to ’45 just? After all, how would we have felt if it had been the Germans bombing US, as they most assuredly would have, had they had the wherewithal to do so. Should we conclude from that that we should have abolished all bombing campaigns over Nazi Germany since we’d never put up with it ourselves?

War never changes. It’s always one side against the other, and only one side will remain standing when it’s all over.

And if you get bogged down in thoughts of “why should I shoot that guy across the field when I surely would resent it if he beat me to it?”, then you won’t be the one standing at the end.

At the end, it’s all determined by who has the biggest might and, in that respect, might really does make right.

If you’re hiding a massmurderer in your basement and you won’t hand him over, then your house is about to become a big cloud of rubble. Because if that is NOT our reaction, then we’ve already lost.

I surely do understand Pohkeestahni resentment at us roaming their airspace, taking out targets that they don’t have the stones and/or decency to take out themselves, but it’s utterly irrelevant. They’re a threat to OUR safety, and therefore they must be taken out.

But yes, Bruce McQuain, let’s just for the sake of argument imagine a world in which WE were harboring terrorists hurting other nations. Would those other nations be justified in launching attacks within OUR territory? They would. Take Fast and Furious, for instance. The Mexican government would be well within their rights to use extraordinary rendition to get Holder and Obama to Mexico where they could be tried for their crimes.

And we would resist it, of course, asserting our national sovereignty, and it could become a huge clusterfuck. But none of it is “wrong.”

It’s just the way the world works.

It’s not “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That doesn’t work in geopolitics.

8 comments

Actually, your Majesty, I prefer the saying as, “Do unto other before they UNDO you”, but really it is all the same. About the only thing I could say about this piece is that perhaps I might make the same argument using different logic, because really what it comes down to, ally or not, sovereign nation or not, they were knowingly sheltering targets that are a danger to our nation, and very much in our interest to terminate.

I am, however, somewhat concerned that if the Pakis do decide to take this to the U.N. we might find ourselves the target of one of those horrible “Sternly Worded Letters”, we all know how terribly, terribly effective those are… we might find ourselves with no other choice than to start launching drone at targets within our own borders were that to happen…

Oh, and by the way. I do believe this might be my first ever first, too.

The Mexican government would be well within their rights to use extraordinary rendition to get Holder and Obama to Mexico where they could be tried for their crimes.
And we would resist it, of course, asserting our national sovereignty

Who is this “we” you speak of? I’d be cheering them on, telling every Commucrat that objected that the Mexicans were only doing the job the Commucrats refused to do.
Certainly if it had been a Republican President and Attorney General who had set up such a program that had fubarred so spectacularly, with the resulting death of an American Law Enforcement Officer, the Commucrats would have gleefully done their Constitutional duty. But, not with President Affirmative Action. For anyone to enforce the laws against him is just RACIST!.
So, Mexico, HELL, YEAH, come and get them. They are all yours. And, if you happen to take out a goodly fraction of Congress, all of DOJ, and all of Il Douche’s Czars in your attempt to remove those two from American soil, just apologize for the collateral damage, and many of us will be most undertanding and forgiving.

The drone program is about the only thing Obama has done halfway right probably because being a drone himself he has a visceral understanding of how drones operate-move about in lazy circles until events force you to act.

The Paki’s can stamp their feet all they want they are arguably, by giving sanctuary to al Qaeda and the Taliban, committing an act of war and deserve their fate. They have always been a belligerent neutral in this thing as they have always had other plans for Afghanistan vis a vis their grand strategy to neutralize India.

The only reason we even make a pretense that they are our allies is because of the potential that terrorist will actually be able to obtain a nuke from them and start some shit. However considering the duplicity they have engaged in it does not bode well that just because we have bought them off on this that they will stay bought.

As for the regime supplying guns to advance a domestic agenda of subversion of the rights of Americans by supplying weapons to narco terrorists looking to de-stabilize the legitimate government(such as it is)of a neighbor is really an act of war. The only reason we don’t face such a reality is that Mexico doesn’t have the wherewithal to pursue it because most of their citizens of military age have crossed the border into the SW United States.

F & F is serious stuff. Perjury, gun smuggling as official US policy to enemies of a neighboring country we are allegedly at peace with(invasions of their citizens not withstanding). Abuse of executive power to cover up illegal acts.Murder. Phony outrage, excuse making, hypocrisy and race baiting by the usual suspects. All they have left is usual cloud of deceit and brazenness they throw up every time they get caught pursuing their lawless agenda.

Will the ruling junta be able to spin and lie it’s way out of this fiasco(remember it is the Party of Stupid who is in the driver seat here) Stay tuned and pass the beer and chips…popcorn gets stuck in my teeth.

One does not “win” a war using the “Death by 1000 Cuts” method as we are doing but by inflicting such horrid damage on the enemy they have no choice but to surrender and police their own to our satisfaction. Those in the palaces don’t want to lose their gravy train and will comply.

Unfortunately, we (the supposed “good guys”) are the only group complying with anything – to the extent we’re putting our soldiers on trial for doing their job.

War is the ultimate expression of “Do Unto Others Before They Do Unto You”. We should do so or get the hell out.

I have to disagree: It’s not a fair question, at least not as asked in the article.

I just wondered what we’d think if Pakistan began flying UAVs into the US and knocking off politicians who supported UAV strikes in Pakistan, calling them “war criminals” and all?

That tries to equate targeting unlawful combatants, terrorists, operating in a country with the tacit approval of that nation’s government with targeting a nation’s government. There is a world of difference. Maybe if the author had asked, “How would we feel if Pakistan began flying UAVs into the US and knocking off terrorists that killed Pakistani forces because our government did nothing to stop them?”, it would be a valid question, though there is still a heap of contextual differences left out, but that would require more honesty than using a false equivilence.